What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?

[John G]

Thanks for this, John! Yes, Scobie will have counted on exactly this: that there will have been a realistic chance of the evidence convicting Lechmere. Which is important to know - trials do not come about lightly! Herlock earlier asked me why I thought Scobies words were a point in favour of Lechmere being the culprit, and this is of course the best answer to that question.

You ask how Scobie could have applied the evidential test effectively and objectively, but there was only call for one of those parameters - efficiency. Scobie reviewed the evidence AGAINST Lechmere, and that was the basis for his take on the matter. So the "objectively" demand does not come into play here; Scobie in all probability did not look at what the defense would have had to say, he only looked at the evidence against (as far as we know). And that is the premise of his verdict: If no defense was offered, then the evidence against Lechmere would be enough to take to trial and to probably convict him.

Charles Lechmere is dead, John. We cannot guarantee him a fair and objective trial, since there will BE no trial. All we can do is to look at the evidence and weigh it, and weighing it with the help of legal expertise is always a healthy thing to do. And that expertise says that if we only look at the prosecution side, then that side has the material to bring Lechmere to court and likely convict him of murder. It is not part of a trial, it is a legal experts judgment of the value of the accusatory evidence.

After that, you are part of the defense yourself if you wish to, and you are free to produce as many alternative innocent explanations as you wish to - they can ALWAYS be provided where there is only circumstantial evidence. Keep in mind, though, that the more points we have to explain away, the lesser the chance of innocence becomes. "One coincidence too many", as Scobie put it.

Thanks Christer, I think I understand. Scobie would obviously not have applied a modern evidential test, as carried out by the CPS, because he wouldn't know what Lechmere's defence/ explanations would have been had he been arrested, interviewed, and charged. He therefore, as you say, looked at the available evidence from a prosecutor's perspective, a subjective approach, and decided on that basis that there was a satisfactory case against him.

[Fisherman]

Thanks Christer, I think I understand. Scobie would obviously not have applied a modern evidential test, as carried out by the CPS, because he wouldn't know what Lechmere's defence/ explanations would have been had he been arrested, interviewed, and charged. He therefore, as you say, looked at the available evidence from a prosecutor's perspective, a subjective approach, and decided on that basis that there was a satisfactory case against him.

That sounds just about correct, John. Of course, as I say, I cannot say with certainty that Scobie was not given any material that could be used in Lechmere´s defense since I do not know what was compiled and given to him. But regardless if he WAS given any such material, it still applies that the narrator clearly stated that Scobie was asked to review the evidence AGAINST Lechmere, and the reasonable thing to expect is that he only commented on that part of the evidence and accordingly, just as you say, he worked from a prosecutors perspective, deciding on that material only that it would be sufficient to warrant a trial.

It is not how a fair trial is conducted, and it can therefore not be used to convict Lechmere in retrospect. Every man has a right to have both sides presented before a verdict is passed. Then again, it is not part of any trial, it is only a reflection of how Scobie evaluated the built-in power of the accusatory evidence. Per se, it is immensely interesting since it provides Lechmere with a backdrop that no other suspect comes close to. Then again, I am told that no comparison can be made between suspects who are studied from a historical angle and those who are studied from a criminological one...?

Anyhow, John; you set a shining example by understanding the intentions of the filmmakers and Scobie on this point. I only wish others could pick up where you leave off!

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Scobie reviewed the evidence AGAINST Lechmere, and that was the basis for his take on the matter. So the "objectively" demand does not come into play here; Scobie in all probability did not look at what the defense would have had to say, he only looked at the evidence against (as far as we know). And that is the premise of his verdict: If no defense was offered, then the evidence against Lechmere would be enough to take to trial and to probably convict him.

But it’s not a case of - if no defence was offered - it was a case of - no defence was heard.

And if it was a case of - if no defence was offered - then the ensuing judgment is worthless.

This is a very simple, black and white issue.

Scobie heard one side and decided that, if there was nothing else, there was a case to answer. As if he’d take someone to court without hearing the pro’s and con’s to weigh them up!

This in itself is nothing short of staggering but....

If he’d have heard the arguments for the defence he might have come to a different judgment. Therefore the arguments against Lechmere’s guilt are intrinsic to a fair judgment.

Why is this childishly simple concept a problem?

You cannot sit someone down in front of a file entitled Lechmere was Jack The Ripper (ok, I’m exaggerating a bit) and expect him to come up with a balanced judgment.

So it wasn’t a balanced judgment. It was a imbalanced judgment. And an imbalanced judgment is a worthless one.

[Scott Nelson]

Of course, as I say, I cannot say with certainty that Scobie was not given any material that could be used in Lechmere´s defense since I do not know what was compiled and given to him.

Christer, I was under the impression you did know. Or was it Ed, or another person or the program that complied the material?

[Harry D]

But it’s not a case of - if no defence was offered - it was a case of - no defence was heard.

And if it was a case of - if no defence was offered - then the ensuing judgment is worthless.

This is a very simple, black and white issue.

Scobie heard one side and decided that, if there was nothing else, there was a case to answer. As if he’d take someone to court without hearing the pro’s and con’s to weigh them up!

This in itself is nothing short of staggering but....

If he’d have heard the arguments for the defence he might have come to a different judgment. Therefore the arguments against Lechmere’s guilt are intrinsic to a fair judgment.

Why is this childishly simple concept a problem?

You cannot sit someone down in front of a file entitled Lechmere was Jack The Ripper (ok, I’m exaggerating a bit) and expect him to come up with a balanced judgment.

So it wasn’t a balanced judgment. It was a imbalanced judgment. And an imbalanced judgment is a worthless one.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

Oh wait, that's your line!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Elementary, my dear Watson.

Oh wait, that's your line!

Beat me to it Harry.

[drstrange169]

To take the non-relevant subject matter away from this thread, I've created a new thread for those that wish to continue discussing the Scobie issue.

"What was Kosminski is now Lechmere: how relevant is Scobie?"

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...vant-is-scobie

[Fisherman]

Christer, I was under the impression you did know. Or was it Ed, or another person or the program that complied the material?

To put it simply, I don't know. But I always worked from the assumption that Edward guided these things; he advised the team in most questions, and none of the team had anywhere near as extensive knowledge of the case as he did. I didn't even know that Scobie would appear on the docu until the shooting had begun. What I had recommended was that a seasoned murder investigator was contacted and would give an opinion about the validity of the case. I also asked that this investigator did not have a prior interest or background in the case.
But frankly, I never assumed that we would have a situation where posters were willing to baselessly suggest that the experts were lied to or misled.

I notice that Dr Strange has created an unnecessary new thread for the Scobie matter. If the discussion is to be moved, there is a thread for the docu already, and I suggest that any discussion relating to the docu is moved there instead.

[Fisherman]

But it’s not a case of - if no defence was offered - it was a case of - no defence was heard.

And if it was a case of - if no defence was offered - then the ensuing judgment is worthless.

There is no judgment, Herlock. That is the whole point. John G had no problems grasping it, so why should you have?

This is a very simple, black and white issue.

Yes, but it is not the issue you believe it is.

Scobie heard one side and decided that, if there was nothing else, there was a case to answer. As if he’d take someone to court without hearing the pro’s and con’s to weigh them up!

No, not as if he would take someone to court without hearing the pros and cons. As if he was willing to offer his view on the quality of the accusations in isolation, to give a picture of how strong they are on their own. Both the accusatory AND the defense material CAN be weighed in isolation, and both processes are of interest.

This in itself is nothing short of staggering but....

If he’d have heard the arguments for the defence he might have come to a different judgment. Therefore the arguments against Lechmere’s guilt are intrinsic to a fair judgment.

Why is this childishly simple concept a problem?

You tell me. I am having no problems, John G has no problems, Abby has no problems. You, on the other hand, suffer from the delusion that Lechmere has been tried and sentenced on insufficient grounds, but that has never happened. All that has happened is that James Scobie has told us that the elements involved in the accusatory side of the case are enough to warrant a trial, a trial that would have convicted Lechmere if no defense came forth.
Is that too subtle a process for you to fathom? Really? Or are you just trying to nullify the importance of how a QC rates the evidence against Lechmere?

You keep nagging on about how I do something I do NOT do. Can you please stop?

You cannot sit someone down in front of a file entitled Lechmere was Jack The Ripper (ok, I’m exaggerating a bit) and expect him to come up with a balanced judgment.

Yes, I can, and I do. He can come up with a perfectly balanced judgment about whether or not the accusations as such have the kind of quality that allows for a trial. It is a theoretical question only, since - and try and get it this time - there will BE no trial. There is always such a weighing process involved and it precedes the weighing against the defense material; if there can be no conviction based on the accusatory material only, then the case will not be taken to trial in the first place. But IF a conviction is the logical outcome, then the case WILL go to trial, unless the defense material is of a character that means that a conviction becomes unlikely.
Of course, the weighing up of the accusatory material is of immense interest to anybody even remotely interested in a case. But for you. You want ot to go away, and you think it is something that should never have been presented.

So it wasn’t a balanced judgment. It was a imbalanced judgment. And an imbalanced judgment is a worthless one.

As I have shown above, it is anything but worthless. You are missing out on the all-important fact that Scobie is not saying that Lechmere was guilty. He is saying that the accusatory material suggests that he was guilty and that it would suffice to take the case to a trial. If you cannot understand the relevance of these points, then maybe you should get another hobby, Herlock. You loathe it when I say that you are ignorant, I know that quite well, and believe me, I would love it if I didn't have to.
But once I must, then I will.

Until you understand why it carries weight when a barrister says that the weighing up of the accusatory material as such allows for a trial, our discussion is effectively over.

[Fisherman]

Kosminski of course can be used as a comparison here. Would a barrister looking at the accusatory material involved in his case say that it warrants a trial?

Hearsay has it that he was pointed out at an investigation. We don't know when, we don't know by whom and we don't know for what, but it supposedly would tie Kosminski to the case in some way or another.

He is said to have threatened his own sister with a knife.

He is said to have plucked up a chair and threatened to hit a caretaker in an asylum with it.

I´d say we don't have to hear any defense material before we throw that "case" out (sorry, R J), and the same goes for every other suspect but Lechmere.

So after 131 years, we now have a suspect who could be taken to trial on the accusatory evidence existing, according to a barrister and QC. But that is "worthless", or so I am told.

Is it any wonder that Ripperology has a bad reputation?

I'm off for now.

[Trevor Marriott]

That sounds just about correct, John. Of course, as I say, I cannot say with certainty that Scobie was not given any material that could be used in Lechmere´s defense since I do not know what was compiled and given to him. But regardless if he WAS given any such material, it still applies that the narrator clearly stated that Scobie was asked to review the evidence AGAINST Lechmere, and the reasonable thing to expect is that he only commented on that part of the evidence and accordingly, just as you say, he worked from a prosecutors perspective, deciding on that material only that it would be sufficient to warrant a trial.

It is not how a fair trial is conducted, and it can therefore not be used to convict Lechmere in retrospect. Every man has a right to have both sides presented before a verdict is passed. Then again, it is not part of any trial, it is only a reflection of how Scobie evaluated the built-in power of the accusatory evidence. Per se, it is immensely interesting since it provides Lechmere with a backdrop that no other suspect comes close to. Then again, I am told that no comparison can be made between suspects who are studied from a historical angle and those who are studied from a criminological one...?

Anyhow, John; you set a shining example by understanding the intentions of the filmmakers and Scobie on this point. I only wish others could pick up where you leave off!

What did you and Edward actually present to Blink films? Because I am sure they didn't simply pluck your theory out of the blue, and do their own research, and then channel that research to Scobie. The initial idea must have come from you with your presentation of the facts to them, the same facts which you keep using on here to support your theory.

And as we know your facts are biased in favor of Lechmere being the killer, and you reject all the facts which point to him being an innocent man

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

What did you and Edward actually present to Blink films? Because I am sure they didn't simply pluck your theory out of the blue, and do their own research, and then channel that research to Scobie. The initial idea must have come from you with your presentation of the facts to them, the same facts which you keep using on here to support your theory.

And as we know your facts are biased in favor of Lechmere being the killer, and you reject all the facts which point to him being an innocent man

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Let's begin from the end - please list "all the facts that point to him being an innocent man", Trevor.

The origin of the Blink Films docu is as follows:

They had decided to make a series about different interesting cases, and they wanted to see if there was something new in the way of theories surrounding the Ripper case. And so they asked ripperologists about it, one of them being Neil Bell. He, and presumably others, mentioned the Lechmere theory, and the film company contacted Edward Stow about it. Edward subsequently presented the case to the company in the shape of producer David McNab, who had a long standing interest in the case and who had researched it himself, resulting in him getting convinced that the case would never be solved. When he heard the Lechmere theory, he changed his mind and came to the conclusion that he had been wrong in his anticipation; he now believes the case IS solved.
Edward cooperated with the company and material was compiled and given to Andy Griffiths and Scobie (and of course to Jason Payne-James too). I met with Griffiths, as you know, and I noticed that he had been handed the same compilation of the case as I got myself. It was an extensive collection of newspaper articles and police reports, covering the case in a comprehensive manner. I noticed one error only in it, where an article was attributed to a paper that was not responsible, and that mistake was corrected.

The facts I use "to support my theory" as you put it, are the case facts, recorded in the articles and reports from the time. They will be the exact same material that you yourself support to claim that Feigenbaum was a good suspect (which he really was not, but that's another story). If the facts I use had not been recorded in the papers and reports, you would have been able to point that out, and that has not happened. Nor will it happen. The Lechmere case is built on solid ground, and of a quality that is enough to warrant a trial.

You say that my facts "are biased" in favour of Lechmere being the killer. How does that differ from how you look at the facts visavi Feigenbaum? How does it differ from how the police looked at the facts in the Green River killer case, the Gacy case, the BTK case etcetera - they look at a suspect and find that he meets the criteria for a suspect (the way Scobie found that Lechmere meets that criteria too), and they make a case from that insight.
Is that "bias" or is it justified and logical police work, Trevor?

Bias, my ass.

Note to Dr Strange: They just won't listen to you, will they?

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's begin from the end - please list "all the facts that point to him being an innocent man", Trevor.

The origin of the Blink Films docu is as follows:

They had decided to make a series about different interesting cases, and they wanted to see if there was something new in the way of theories surrounding the Ripper case. And so they asked ripperologists about it, one of them being Neil Bell. He, and presumably others, mentioned the Lechmere theory, and the film company contacted Edward Stow about it. Edward subsequently presented the case to the company in the shape of producer David McNab, who had a long standing interest in the case and who had researched it himself, resulting in him getting convinced that the case would never be solved. When he heard the Lechmere theory, he changed his mind and came to the conclusion that he had been wrong in his anticipation; he now believes the case IS solved.
Edward cooperated with the company and material was compiled and given to Andy Griffiths and Scobie (and of course to Jason Payne-James too). I met with Griffiths, as you know, and I noticed that he had been handed the same compilation of the case as I got myself. It was an extensive collection of newspaper articles and police reports, covering the case in a comprehensive manner. I noticed one error only in it, where an article was attributed to a paper that was not responsible, and that mistake was corrected.

The facts I use "to support my theory" as you put it, are the case facts, recorded in the articles and reports from the time. They will be the exact same material that you yourself support to claim that Feigenbaum was a good suspect (which he really was not, but that's another story). If the facts I use had not been recorded in the papers and reports, you would have been able to point that out, and that has not happened. Nor will it happen. The Lechmere case is built on solid ground, and of a quality that is enough to warrant a trial.

You say that my facts "are biased" in favour of Lechmere being the killer. How does that differ from how you look at the facts visavi Feigenbaum? How does it differ from how the police looked at the facts in the Green River killer case, the Gacy case, the BTK case etcetera - they look at a suspect and find that he meets the criteria for a suspect (the way Scobie found that Lechmere meets that criteria too), and they make a case from that insight.
Is that "bias" or is it justified and logical police work, Trevor?

Bias, my ass.

Note to Dr Strange: They just won't listen to you, will they?

But you have not one piece of real evidence to make Lechmere a suspect, other than he found the body. In all the other cases there is evidence to suspect a particular killer! and simply finding the body does not amount to a prima facie case, and Scobie as he told me was not given the full facts otherwise he would not have made that statement.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But you have not one piece of real evidence to make Lechmere a suspect, other than he found the body. In all the other cases there is evidence to suspect a particular killer! and simply finding the body does not amount to a prima facie case, and Scobie as he told me was not given the full facts otherwise he would not have made that statement.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yawn. How predictable. And how wrong.

I really cannot be arsed, Trevor. The quality is way too low.

PS. Finding a body does NOT make you a suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yawn. How predictable. And how wrong.

I really cannot be arsed, Trevor. The quality is way too low.

PS. Finding a body does NOT make you a suspect.

Somebody had to find it, if it had been a female would you still be babbling on about her then being a suspect ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk